Let’s Put A Fork In This One
Okay, Obama’s pastor is a certified fear-mongering conspiracy theorist kook, but here’s what Obama said in an op-ed:
…I vehemently disagree and strongly condemn the statements that have been the subject of this controversy. I categorically denounce any statement that disparages our great country or serves to divide us from our allies. I also believe that words that degrade individuals have no place in our public dialogue, whether it’s on the campaign stump or in the pulpit. In sum, I reject outright the statements by Rev. Wright that are at issue.
Because these particular statements by Rev. Wright are so contrary to my own life and beliefs, a number of people have legitimately raised questions about the nature of my relationship with Rev. Wright and my membership in the church.
…The statements that Rev. Wright made that are the cause of this controversy were not statements I personally heard him preach while I sat in the pews of Trinity or heard him utter in private conversation. When these statements first came to my attention, it was at the beginning of my presidential campaign. I made it clear at the time that I strongly condemned his comments. But because Rev. Wright was on the verge of retirement, and because of my strong links to the Trinity faith community, where I married my wife and where my daughters were baptized, I did not think it appropriate to leave the church.
Let me repeat what I’ve said earlier. All of the statements that have been the subject of controversy are ones that I vehemently condemn. They in no way reflect my attitudes and directly contradict my profound love for this country.
With Rev. Wright’s retirement and the ascension of my new pastor, Rev. Otis Moss, III, Michelle and I look forward to continuing a relationship with a church that has done so much good. And while Rev. Wright’s statements have pained and angered me, I believe that Americans will judge me not on the basis of what someone else said, but on the basis of who I am and what I believe in; on my values, judgment and experience to be President of the United States.
I think that’s more than sufficient…isn’t it? If anyone disagrees, I’d like to know why…
Rather refreshing in its directness.
I disagree and here’s why.
I don’t see how a single op-ed can be reasonably construed as anything other than damage control and a shameless effort to save face.
Obama claims he was never aware of the controversial statements his pastor made, but, as Charles points out, it strains credulity to the breaking point to believe that someone could be a member of a church for TWO DECADES and keep his pastor not only as a close spiritual mentor but also (until recently) a campaign adviser who got top billing on his website (also on LGF).
“But because Rev. Wright was on the verge of retirement, and because of my strong links to the Trinity faith community, where I married my wife and where my daughters were baptized, I did not think it appropriate to leave the church.”
Has Rev. Wright been on the verge of retirement for 20 years? If not, then leaving now would be just a more substantive version of this op-ed, a shameless and (hopefully) futile attempt at damage control.
Also, just saw The Audacity of Hope advertised to the right and it reminded me: Obama (positively) quotes Wright extensively in the book; the title was even inspired by Wright.
I’d like to know why we’re even talking about it in the first place. What has Wright said that’s really all that objectionable? He gets along with Louis Farrakhan, which is not ideal, but it’s not the end of the world. He has said 9/11 was a consequence of American policy, which has the virtue of being true. And he’s generally pretty angry about the state of affairs for blacks in the United States. He’s angry and over the top (and he may even be wrong), but he’s not some kind of force for evil.
He’s not, for instance, John Hagee.
Ok, so you believe Obama is a liar, fine, I don’t.
And Hagee/McCain couldn’t be any more dissimilar from Wright/Obama. Wright is/was Obama’s so-called “spiritual leader and mentor”, McCain has a passing and remote relationship with Hagee. The only similarity is that Hagee and Wright are hate-filled, miserable individuals.
So, Hiroshima led to 9/11. Must be because Bin Laden was Japanese. Or maybe Bin Laden was South African.
So much for “9/11 was a consequence of American policy” being “true”.
Malcom X famously said that JFK’s killing was chickens come home to roost. This is just an echo. And just as wrong.
Ryan, I think Obama does not agree with you that it was not “objectionable”. Otherwise, he would not have gone on Fox and MSNBC and CNN on the same night to try to kill this.
To answer Mark’s question, the statement is probably enough if you believe it. You have to believe that Wright saved his hatred for when Obama was not in church. Kinda hard in my mind but maybe he just never went very often.
Yes, Bob, people hate America for no reason whatsoever. It’s just irrational evil. How should one argue with that “logic”? You know how allowing gays to marry is destroying the moral fabric of marriage, or abortion is evil etc. etc. etc.? Why is it the right buys into that idea, of family values, etc. and yet, when someone suggests that murdering millions of people with a large nuclear weapon (the only such uses of such weapons for military purposes) could possibly have led to a large amount of hostility towards the nation that ordered said actions, or even more generally, that said action is evidence that could be used to argue that the US has very little respect for ACTUAL human life (rather than, POTENTIAL), especially when coupled with many other skirmishes we are involved in only due to economic interests, or skirmishes we are not currently involved in due to lack of economic interest?
Here you go Aaron, he wasn’t there for at least one of said events:
http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/03/kristol_bungles_key_fact_in_an.php
And, of course, it goes without saying that 20 years ago he didn’t make these statements. It was last year and he was near retirement.
TMS: The difference is that Hagee is objectively a bad guy who thinks killing people is a substitute for policy. Wright is angry and perhaps a little loony, but he isn’t advocating the slaughter of foreign masses. Whatever McCain’s relationship to Hagee may be is irrelevant because Hagee’s philosophy is not just wrong/bad but in fact evil.
Bob: Are you seriously denying that 9/11 was a consequence of American foreign policy? Seriously? Do you actually believe Al Qaeda would have been interested in the US if we weren’t exactly the sort of imperialist busybodies that we are? (To forestall the quite lunatic accusation that I might be “anti-American”, let’s just go right ahead and stipulate that I don’t think 9/11 was justified or that the response – removing the Taliban – was wrong.) As for what Obama believes, that’s up to him. I also don’t believe a lot of what Wright has to say, but that doesn’t mean I feel any special need to run around denouncing him. A lot of people believe a lot of crazy things – have you ever heard a Republican open his/her mouth? – but the ones who aren’t actually hurting anyone can probably be left alone generally.
Ryan, I don’t even know where to begin. First of all, Wright didn’t just say that 9/11 was the result of our foreign policy, he said we deserved it. (as for the former, more benign spin you put on it, do you mean in the sense that if the US hadn’t pulled out of Somalia after the Black Hawk incident or hadn’t pulled out of Beirut after the bombing 9/11 wouldn’t have happened? Because I could see the logic in that).
Wright also said “God Damn America.” And ANYONE who says or defends that comment automatically goes to my s—- list and stays there.
And Mark, I would simply echo Aaron’s comment.
Ryan: Sean is right about what Wright meant. Wright is saying we deserved 9/11 because we did “evil” things, mainly not “evil” things against Moslems (Palestinians excepted), but because we used atomic weapons 60 years ago and supported white South Africa 20 years ago.
YOU think 9/11 was due to our bad Mideast policy but Wright is making a broader point. Do you agree with that point?
By the way, since no possible US policy in the Mideast would satisfy Bin Laden, then I do reject to the point that 9/11 was a result of our Mideast policy. We are the leading power so he attacks us. If it was the EU, he would have attacked London or Paris.
PS to mikebdot: What the heck are you talking about in your first paragraph?
I know Obama didn’t say that Wright was on the verge of retirement 20 years ago. I think it’s a fairly safe assumption — well, more than an assumption really since it’s been documented, albeit sans video — that Wright has been giving “sermons” such as the one in controversy as long as he’s been there, and at least as long as Obama has been attending. Thus, if Obama sat through the first hate-filled rant because he thought it was an aberration, fine. But why would he continue to sit through the third and fourth, much less 20 years worth?
Oh, wait! I think I know why! Maybe it’s because Trinity is the most politically active black church in the Chicago area and by joining it gave Obama access to the Chicago’s black political machine. That’s the only plausible alternative to the assertion that Obama actually believes Wright’s hate-speech.
So, Obama’s either at least as blatant an opportunist as any other politician who has ever come along, or he believes the most vile things possible about his country (explaining why he refuses to put his hand over his heart during the National Anthem or wear a flag in his lapel). I’m more inclined to believe the former.
Either alternative obliterates at least one of Obama’s major plank. If it’s the former, he embodies that which he has decried as the greatest threat to America: cynicism.
If the former, his judgment argument is gone: not only did he exhibit poor judgment in associating with a man such as Wright and he opposed the war in Iraq not because of his “judgment” — or at least not judgment with regard to foreign policy — but because, in his neighborhood, it was politically expedient to do so.
I agree with Mark. I’m taking the opportunity to say that, because it doesn’t happen often.
Also, Aaron, are you arguing that Wright’s opinions about 9/11 should have turned Obama off 20 years ago? A full 13 years before 9/11 happened? What do you know that we don’t?
I see…
So, rather than asking whether the candidates have anything sensible to say about the unfolding crisis in the financial markets, “we” (including the talking heads on the cable news networks) are obsessing over whether one of the candidates was paying attention during the sermon in church on Sunday.
If that’s the criterion for choosing a President, we are truly f%$#@d.
Spam filter acting up again … !?
Fargus. No; I know I shouldn’t be surprised at your illiteracy and complete lack of reading comprehension at this point, but you never cease to astound me.
I’ll re-post what I said above so you can read it again.
“Wright has been giving “sermons” such as the one in controversy as long as he’s been there, and at least as long as Obama has been attending.”
Better now? No; it’s still not sinking in through that thick skull of yours, huh?
Wright has been giving “sermons” such as the one in controversy as long as he’s been there, and at least as long as Obama has been attending.Wright has been giving “sermons” such as the one in controversy as long as he’s been there, and at least as long as Obama has been attending.Wright has been giving “sermons” such as the one in controversy as long as he’s been there, and at least as long as Obama has been attending.Wright has been giving “sermons” such as the one in controversy as long as he’s been there, and at least as long as Obama has been attending.Wright has been giving “sermons” such as the one in controversy as long as he’s been there, and at least as long as Obama has been attending.Wright has been giving “sermons” such as the one in controversy as long as he’s been there, and at least as long as Obama has been attending.Wright has been giving “sermons” such as the one in controversy as long as he’s been there, and at least as long as Obama has been attending.Wright has been giving “sermons” such as the one in controversy as long as he’s been there, and at least as long as Obama has been attending.Wright has been giving “sermons” such as the one in controversy as long as he’s been there, and at least as long as Obama has been attending.Wright has been giving “sermons” such as the one in controversy as long as he’s been there, and at least as long as Obama has been attending.Wright has been giving “sermons” such as the one in controversy as long as he’s been there, and at least as long as Obama has been attending.Wright has been giving “sermons” such as the one in controversy as long as he’s been there, and at least as long as Obama has been attending.Wright has been giving “sermons” such as the one in controversy as long as he’s been there, and at least as long as Obama has been attending.Wright has been giving “sermons” such as the one in controversy as long as he’s been there, and at least as long as Obama has been attending.Wright has been giving “sermons” such as the one in controversy as long as he’s been there, and at least as long as Obama has been attending.Wright has been giving “sermons” such as the one in controversy as long as he’s been there, and at least as long as Obama has been attending.Wright has been giving “sermons” such as the one in controversy as long as he’s been there, and at least as long as Obama has been attending.Wright has been giving “sermons” such as the one in controversy as long as he’s been there, and at least as long as Obama has been attending.Wright has been giving “sermons” such as the one in controversy as long as he’s been there, and at least as long as Obama has been attending.Wright has been giving “sermons” such as the one in controversy as long as he’s been there, and at least as long as Obama has been attending.Wright has been giving “sermons” such as the one in controversy as long as he’s been there, and at least as long as Obama has been attending.Wright has been giving “sermons” such as the one in controversy as long as he’s been there, and at least as long as Obama has been attending.
How about now? Perhaps I should spell it out for you. It is a safe assumption that Wright has been giving similar anti-American rants as sermons as long as he’s been preaching, not on the subject of 9/11, per se, but with the same theme. America is racist and evil and should be hated and condemned, not blessed by God.
Jacques, recovered your comment – I sense a distaste with the topic, but it IS a major story, for better or worse.
Some of you seem to question what was wrong with Wright’s comments – well, Obama didn’t – he found them appalling and said so – and so do I. “God damn America” is not a suitable sentiment for the ‘spiritual adviser’ to the possible next President of the United States. And I’m not even going to give anyone the satisfaction of arguing for the millionth time what is so appalling about saying 9/11 was ‘chickens coming home to roost’ – it’s self-evidently anti-American and disgustingly insensitive to the families of the people who were destroyed for the crime of showing up to work in mid-Manhattan.
Now, back to Obama – we can question his motives and play arm-chair psychologist, but the fact of the matter is that he addressed the controversy forthrightly and in strong terms, with no wiggle room and clear condemnation – I can’t imagine what more he could do at this point.
And this has nothing to do with Hagee, who, as has been pointed out, has no official links whatsoever with the McCain camp, nut though he may be…
Aaron, your indignation was cute, but I was pretty obviously being facetious with the 9/11 comment.
Mark,
I don’t know if you are a church-going man, but I imagine you would be indignant if I were to judge your fitness for office, based not on your qualifications or personal statements, but rather based on the content of the sermons given by your pastor.
I agree with you that Obama issued a forthright and clearcut condemnation. And I think that more than enough time has been wasted on this pseudo-issue. Do any of the commenters here wish to defend the proposition that this is the basis on which they think one should go about choosing a president? Seriously?
Meanwhile, back in the real world, two of the three major candidates for the Presidency made statements — contradictory statements — about the unprecedented move by the Federal Reserve, over the weekend, to bail out Bear Stearns.
Which of the two is right? Which is wrong? And what does it say to you that the third candidate is completely AWOL on the issue (indeed, on the whole subject of the current crisis in the financial markets)?
Bob: I want to be clear that I don’t agree with everything Wright has to say. At the same time, though, pretending that it’s all completely out of bounds is, I think, wrong. The United States does undoubtedly have a long and undignified imperial history. Wright brings up the atom bombs, which seems reasonable to me. If we (like Mark does in his last comment) are going to get all indignant about the “anti-American” sentiment that 9/11 was a (not justified but at least understandably connected) response to American policy, we’re going to have to deal with the fact that United States government has ordered the deaths of a whole lot of innocents in its time. You may call it a necessity of war, but so would bin Laden. This may make me a terrorist sympathizer, but I honestly can’t see a way to justify what we did in Hiroshima and Nagasaki without simultaneously justifying what al Qaeda did in Manhattan. That said, of course, I would seek to justify neither. I consider both inexcusable. As I imagine Jeremiah Wright does as well.
If he wants to cross the line and say innocent people deserved to die, that’s a place I won’t follow. But I think there is a definite distinction between saying innocent people deserve to die and saying that we as a nation deserve a heaping helping of humble pie.
Mark- I disagree.
Here’s why: “…The statements that Rev. Wright made that are the cause of this controversy were not statements I personally heard him preach while I sat in the pews of Trinity… When these statements first came to my attention, it was at the beginning of my presidential campaign.”
That statement is a gauntlet thrown down in front of the five or six remaining investigative journalists in America and the unwashed millions who blog and post video to youtube.
There’s no way it’s really true, except in a Clintonian parsing of it.
He did hear substantively similar comments over a long period of time, and chose to loudly hail this man as his spiritual mentor.
And when someone finds a tape of a rally they held together, or of an impromptu speech at a ribbon cutting, or anything where it can be shown Obama was present…
… the tape will play on the evening news, because Obama’s just made it newsworthy.
And the American people will get to listen to tape of Wright saying “God Damn America” or “Evil White Greed” or such again and again, with Obama’s name attached.
Until Obama gets out in front of the issue. Somehow.
Ryan – well said.
Mark – What really gets me about this whole thing is that it is transparently a smear towards Obama. Find statements his preacher (not himself) made to make it appear as though Obama is not Christian enough. This is an effort to take away votes from progressive Christian folks. Part of Obama’s strength is that he has branded himself a good family man, a moral man, and so they went after him with the Muslim garb crap and they keep using his middle name and now this. There will be more, oh yes. It’s classic GOP. May as well call themselves “sermon-boaters”.
Why don’t we know the names and eating habits of the white folks’ preachers involved in the election? Maybe one of them is Catholic and refuses to eat fish on Fridays. The Red Lobster rumor mill could make some money breaking THAT story. “He always orders a cheeseburger”.
Just because it’s on the news doesn’t mean it actually IS “news”.
Also, I can’t even begin to count the number of times I’ve heard Christian people talk smack about their preachers, yet they stay there. Sure, sometimes they run the guy out or just plain leave, but why should you hold someone accountable for wanting to have continuity in their religious experience just because YOU happen to disagree with their preacher? It’s just goofy.
Wow.
You need to learn some history Ryan. The Japanese Empire launched a war of aggression and conquest. They started with China. Then Pearl Harbor and the invasions of the Philipines, Malayasia, Burma, Indochina.
They weren’t very nice rulers either.
Ever hear of the Rape of Nanking or the Bataan Death March? Standard Japanese operating procedure.
At Iwo Jima and Okinawa when they had no chance, they fought to the last man and inflicted heavy casulaties on the US. What do you think a US invasion of the home islands would have cost us in lives? Not to mention Japanese lives.
Japan started a war and lost it. If you think Hiroshima and Nagasaki were the same as 9/11, then I pity you.
Many of the people killed in NY were not even Americans. Did our “imperialistic” foreign policy justfy their deaths?
Wright was wrong in what he said, but it is also wrong for the press and others to try to pin guilt by association on Obama. (Needless to say, two wrongs don’t make a Wright). There is nothing Obama has said or done remotely similar to Wright’s remarks — the story has no there there.
In my view, the whole thing is just filling a void on slow news days, and will be forgotten soon enough.
Bob: Maybe I haven’t been clear about this the other few times I’ve said it, but I don’t think there was anything justified about the slaughter of innocents on 9/11. Saying that I can see the causal chain from our policy to the terrorist attacks does not in any way commit me to the position that 9/11 was the correct thing for Al Qaeda to do. Or that the pilots of those plains won’t burn in hell forever (assuming the existence of hell, which seems implausible).
“The Japanese Empire launched a war of aggression and conquest.”
Uh… so have we. Lots of wars of aggression and conquest. Philippines, Korea, Vietnam, Iraq… the list goes on. This is how imperialism works. And we’re not very nice rulers either – see, for instance, the brutality of our soldiers in Vietnam or Abu Ghraib. If we were justified in blowing up Hiroshima and Nagasaki as a response to the Japanese imperial project, then it follows as a matter of logic that Al Qaeda was justified in blowing up Manhattan as a response to our imperial project. Imperialism isn’t okay just because you happen to own the empire.
Wow. Plains = planes. Must proofread…
“If we were justified in blowing up Hiroshima and Nagasaki as a response to the Japanese imperial project, then it follows as a matter of logic that Al Qaeda was justified in blowing up Manhattan as a response to our imperial project.”
We were attacked by the Japanese and dropped the bomb to hasten the end of the war and save American lives. Others may differ, but in my view this is a perfectly moral thing to do.
Whatever one thinks of American foreign policy, there is nothing we have done prior to 9/11 which is comparable to the attack on Pearl Harbor, the Japanese occupation of China and Korea, or the aggression of the Axis powers.
For the record:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/03/18/obama-race-speech-read-t_n_92077.html
I know it’s huffpo, but surely you can stop reading when the speech ends and the comments begin…
Well, Peter, we will agree to disagree. I think our longstanding insistence on interfering in Middle East affairs, on denying the political will of sovereign nations, and on propping up whichever dictators served our purposes at the moment is pretty bad. Obviously we have not sought the kind of territorial dominance sought by Nazi Germany (or, outside of early Native American policies, engaged in genocide), but the game has had different rules since WWII. The chess game we played with the Russians involved using a lot of people as pawns for most of the twentieth century. That we won the Cold War has apparently only convinced us that our form of imperialism is good for the world (as if any imperial power in the history of the world hasn’t thought itself fundamentally noble).
Also, I think it’s indisputable that dropping the bomb saved a lot of American lives (if we stipulate that the war with Japan had to be fought to some kind of clear endgame, which I am willing to do). That doesn’t change the fact that it was basically an act of terrorism that involved killing a whole lot of people who hadn’t done anything wrong. I give you credit for forthrightly stating that American military lives are more valuable than Japanese civilian lives, but that’s a place I will not follow you.
I don’t dispute that American foreign policy has supported dictatorships and other unsavory regimes in support of our perceived national interest. However, America has also been the force behind a lot of good in the world — it’s a mixed picture. In any event, I don’t see any equivalence between what we have done and what Japan did in the 1930′s and 1940′s.
As for whether the lives of American soldiers are worth more than those of Japanese civilians: the fact that we were attacked changed the moral calculus. We have the right to defend ourselves, and if civilian casualties were the consequence of ending the war more quickly, then the moral blame falls on the Japanese leadership for engaging us in the first place. Considering that Japan was occupying a large part of Asia, an early end to the war also benefits Asians outside Japan. I respect the arguments against dropping the bomb — however I don’t share them.
That’s all I ask. I don’t care if we solve the arguments; I just want the room for discourse. Not that you are the kind of person I worry about calling me anti-American for asking the sorts of questions I ask.
Per Ryan: terrorism = any violence I don’t like
Hiroshima was not an act of terrorism. It was an act of war and a proximate result of the Japanese aggression. The net result was far fewer Japanese deaths than an invasion would have caused. Once we invaded urbanized Japan, the civilian slaughter would have been immense. Millions easily.
If on the off chance we did not invade, the blockade would have killed many, many people by starvation.
How many lives were saved by 9/11?
You are still making false moral equivilence. To say “I see no difference between Hiroshima and 9/11″ IS a justification of 9/11.
Further, “Imperial project”! If we are an empire, it is the strangest one in history.
I will match up our historic behavior with any country. UK, France, Germany, China, Russia, Japan.
Even little Belgium did things in the Congo that make our treatment of the Indians seem like a grade school fight.
Name one country with less evil acts. Not to mention the good we have done.
(BTW, Korea was a US war of aggression? Funny, I thought the North Koreans invaded South Korea and the UN resisted the invasion.)
Bob: Explicitly targeting civilians for death is not an act of war; it is terrorism. Or at the very least a war crime. I realize we are never going to come to an agreement on this, but I fundamentally don’t see how choosing to kill innocents in hopes of ending a war with Japan is different from, say, a Palestinian suicide bomber blowing up a bus or a school in hopes of forcing Israel off of Palestinian land. To say “I see no logical difference between Hiroshim and 9/11″ is only a justification of 9/11 if you believe that explicitly targeting non-combatants is a legitimate act of war. I don’t, as should be clear.
As for empire, come on. You seriously believe the United States isn’t an imperial power? I have no non-exasperated response to that.
From “Dreams of my Father,” which obviously not a single soul on the right has read, “Jewish doctors were injecting black babies with AIDS.” Why focus on Wright when Barry has said the exact same things? Do Republicans have to be stupid just because Democrats are? I have posted extensively on this ever since someone finally looked up Wright’s statements, the very same statements that Barry himself published in both his books. In “Dreams” he actually talks about why he joined Trinity, it was strictly because of the racism, do we need to ignore that to pay attention to a retired minister who is NOT running for President?
This fixation on Wright simply dumbfounds me when Barry’s own words are the exact same, why, why, why focus on someone other than the candidate himself?
I know one’s not supposed to feed the trolls, but this is teh funny.
Care to supply a page-number for that quote (since you claim to have read the book)?
(The reason this is funny is that this precise quote is attributed to Steve Cokely, who — we can all be thankful — is not running for president). Apparently, all black people must look alike to “Two Dogs,” who — true-to-form — can’t seem to get Obama’s name right.
Well, I can tell you that’s just ludicrous. I have read the book, and here’s the quote in question (from the “updated” paperback version, p. 203):
“Black politicians less gifted than Harold discovered what white politicians had known for a very long time: that race-baiting could make up for a host of limitations. Younger leaders, eager to make a name for themselves, upped the ante, peddling conspiracy theories all over town – the Koreans were funding the Klan, Jewish doctors were injecting black babies with the AIDS virus. It was a shortcut to fame, if not always fortune; like sex or violence on TV, black rage always found a ready market.”
Also, as a point of order: Barack is quite often referred to as Barry by those close to him. This information is also from the book, which you should read. It’s quite outstanding.
Steve Cokely was an aide to Chicago mayor, Eugene Sawyer, when he made the now-infamous remark.
That’s what Obama was alluding to in that passage. To attribute the remark to Obama, himself, is just plain crazy …
I stand corrected.
Thanks.
Ryan, no, we are not an empire.
A hundred years ago we may have dabbled in colonial dreams but we soon abandoned even that. Even during this period, we acted unlike any empire in history, We withdrew from Cuba right away and granted self governance to the Phillipines even before WW II.
Other than Puerto Rico, where are our conquests? What formerly soverign nations have US appointed governors? Where is the tribute from our vast possessions?
The fact that we have a large world presence does not make us an empire. It is just a mindless leftist fantasy.
Also, what law did Hiroshima violate? If it is “crime” then a criminal law was violated. Which one?
Bob, you’re splitting hairs. We are most certainly an empire. We exert enormous political, military, and economic dominance over much of the world. We have long considered it our right and/or duty to tell the sovereign nations of the Western Hemisphere what they are allowed to do and what kinds of governments they are allowed to have. You think the Iran-Contra Affair doesn’t represent the activities of an imperial power? You think actually conquering Iraq, which we have done (poorly, because even empires are sometimes run by idiots), doesn’t count either? Obviously empire is a word with a fuzzy definition, but I think it’s crazy to look at the way the US uses its power and conclude somehow that it’s not an empire.
As for Hiroshima, let’s go with the part in the Nuremburg Principles about “wanton destruction of cities”. That seems to fit.